Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The first side will be treated as a part of the sidewall.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yeh (20220278015).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
612
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yeh teaches an semiconductor device (please see the device in fig. 1B and 3A) comprising:
a first surface (the surface of 104/304 that surrounds 100 and is directly connected to 106) having a first perimeter (the perimeter of this surface has a width W2, as seen in fig. 3A, which is greater than W1);
a second surface (the surface of 104/304 that surrounds 100 and is directly connected to 106) opposite the first surface, the second surface having a second perimeter (the perimeter of this surface has a width W1, as seen in fig. 3A, which is smaller than W3), the first perimeter being greater than the second perimeter (W2 > W1 and thus the perimeter of surface W2 greater than the perimeter of surface W1);
a sidewall (fig. 3A: 303a) extending between the first surface and the second surface, the sidewall defining an overhang (303a has a overhang, 307, and can be seen to have this feature in fig. 3A), a width of the overhang extending between the first perimeter and the second perimeter (please see fig. 3A above),
a thickness of the overhang being less than a thickness of the semiconductor device (as can be seen in fig. 3A, 110 is thicker than 307), the overhang configured to keep epoxy away from the first side (par. 37 teaches that 102 can be an epoxy and a first side, 305a, is distanced from 102 by overhang, 307; further, please see par. 106).
Regarding claim 2, Yeh teaches an semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the sidewall is curved or rounded (as seen in fig. 3A, 303a is seen to have an angle theta).
Regarding claim 3, Yeh teaches an semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the sidewall is angular (as seen in fig. 3A, 303a is seen to have an angle theta).
Regarding claim 4, Yeh teaches an semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the sidewall includes a bevel (please see 303a).
Regarding claim 5, Yeh teaches an semiconductor device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method of manufacturing wherein the sidewall is mechanically cut or laser cut. However, since this limitation is directed towards the process of forming the device structure. It is well settled that “product by process” limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. Case law makes clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language only requires the device structure, which does not distinguish the invention from prior art, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Yeh teaches an semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the semiconductor device is between 50 microns to 150 microns (par. 58 teaches that SH1 is less than 400 um and SH1, as seen in the figures above, is the as thick as 110).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818